Robo Betting

[miff]

Cross Traffic 108 Beyer, like TG neg -1.75.Race won on first slow split,faster one turn, imo.

FL enigmatic or Wilkes not the sharpest knife in the draw.

[Boscar Obarra]

Topcat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jerry Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For reference, the Assateague/Cross Traffic
> double
> > went from $267 to $160. The Assateague/Fort
> Larned
> > double went from $212 to $105. God that late
> money
> > is smart.
>
>
> Not always . . . I\'d heard from multiple
> rumormongers (though not from anyone REALLY close
> to the horse) that Fort Larned\'s recent training
> was less than shiny/sparkly . . .

Smart means you cash. Smart doesn\'t mean  you didnt use a horse that wasn\'t 1000%.

PS Whoever that was, owned a big chunk of the DD INTO the Assateague win as well.

[Topcat]

Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Topcat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > jerry Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > For reference, the Assateague/Cross Traffic
> > double
> > > went from $267 to $160. The Assateague/Fort
> > Larned
> > > double went from $212 to $105. God that late
> > money
> > > is smart.
> >
> >
> > Not always . . . I\'d heard from multiple
> > rumormongers (though not from anyone REALLY
> close
> > to the horse) that Fort Larned\'s recent
> training
> > was less than shiny/sparkly . . .
>
> Smart means you cash. Smart doesn\'t mean  you
> didnt use a horse that wasn\'t 1000%.
>
> PS Whoever that was, owned a big chunk of the DD
> INTO the Assateague win as well.


Not to mention that they took a ton the worst of it on the winning double, vis a vis the parlay price . . .

[Rick B.]

Topcat Wrote:
> Not to mention that they took a ton the worst of
> it on the winning double, vis a vis the parlay
> price . . .

Which might be a meaningful comparison, if anyone
actually made parlay bets anymore -- then, the
additional weight of parlay bets made would be
reflected in the win pool.

I can examine DD probables, and decide if I like the
the estimated value before I bet; can\'t do that with
parlay computations, where a ridiculous overlay
in any leg will throw the result out of skew.

My point is, the game is hard enough; second-guessing
winning payoffs on serial bets is worthless. They pay
what they pay. Attempts at correlating \"this pool\" to
\"that pool\" is an exercise in mathematical masturbation.

[Boscar Obarra]

no, top cat is actually right.

 for some reason they overbet some combos. not sure why, could be two or more \'whales\' doing the same thing at the bell, could just be bad judgement.

[Topcat]

Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Topcat Wrote:
> > Not to mention that they took a ton the worst
> of
> > it on the winning double, vis a vis the parlay
> > price . . .
>
> Which might be a meaningful comparison, if anyone
> actually made parlay bets anymore -- then, the
> additional weight of parlay bets made would be
> reflected in the win pool.
>
> I can examine DD probables, and decide if I like
> the
> the estimated value before I bet; can\'t do that
> with
> parlay computations, where a ridiculous overlay
> in any leg will throw the result out of skew.
>
> My point is, the game is hard enough;
> second-guessing
> winning payoffs on serial bets is worthless. They
> pay
> what they pay. Attempts at correlating \"this pool\"
> to
> \"that pool\" is an exercise in mathematical
> masturbation.


Clock the straights, and the DD involved, in races 9-10 at Monmouth, Saturday.

Any comment from this end would be superfluous.

[Rick B.]

Topcat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clock the straights, and the DD involved, in races
> 9-10 at Monmouth, Saturday.

They match almost perfectly, in the mid-sixties; why,
it must mean something. Right?

Those pools must have been indexed to Disney Co. stock,
which is also trading in the $65 range.

(Makes as much sense to me as any other imagined
correlation.)

[miff]

Hi Rick,

Agree on separate pool correlation,but the $2.00 DD payoff of $35.40 is beyond absurb in light of the first leg paying $5.40 the second leg paying $36.00.Usually this would pay at least 2.5x that,at a minimum.Total DD pool was only like $15.5k

Mike

[Rick B.]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agree on separate pool correlation,but the $2.00
> DD payoff of $35.40 is beyond absurb in light of
> the first leg paying $5.40 the second leg paying
> $36.00.Usually this would pay at least 2.5x
> that,at a minimum.Total DD pool was only like
> $15.5k

Hi Mike,

This is exactly what is wrong with these kinds of
comparisons: we get used to seeing some sort or
relationship between the pools, and then become
alarmed -- \"something is up!\" -- when the numbers
don\'t line up as expected.

This first thing I like to do is some calculations.
Of the $15.5K DD pool, about $700 was bet on the
winning combination. Nothing terribly strange about
that, since the first leg was the post time favorite.

(I\'m sure you know that some bettors wheel or \"proportion
bet\" a favorite in the first leg of the DD, in an attempt
to beat the win pool odds. This is the source of many
DD payoffs that \"seem\" low.)
 
Then I examine the morning lines. The Kelly Breen
horse in the first leg was never going to be 3-1,
but morning line makers routinely shade lines so as to
not signal a weak betting race.
 
The second piece was listed at 8-1. I have no idea how
this horse ended up paying $36, but...the DD bettors
couldn\'t have possible known that was going to happen.
It\'s pretty obvious that it was the win pool in race 10
that made the DD payoff appear short.

Like most of these situations, any notion of impropriety
usually dissolves upon further scrutiny.

[Topcat]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Rick,
>
> Agree on separate pool correlation,but the $2.00
> DD payoff of $35.40 is beyond absurb in light of
> the first leg paying $5.40 the second leg paying
> $36.00.Usually this would pay at least 2.5x
> that,at a minimum.Total DD pool was only like
> $15.5k
>
> Mike


Thanks for saving me the trouble . . . winner of the tenth drifted up in the straight betting as the money rushed to others in the field . . . but as noted, most mid-card Mth DD pools are skimpy, and it only takes a hundred or two on a straight combination to make for meaningful distortion.

[Boscar Obarra]

didn\'t know anyone was suggesting impropriety where these overbet payoffs are concerned.

 don\'t think they were.

[Rick B.]

Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> didn\'t know anyone was suggesting impropriety
> where these overbet payoffs are concerned.
>
>  don\'t think they were.


I had Mike\'s comment in mind...

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...but the $2.00 DD payoff of $35.40 is beyond
> absurd...

...when I mentioned impropriety.

Maybe he meant \"what with the brutal efficiency
of the Robo Betting software\". If so, point taken.

[miff]

Nothing wrong,small pools can easily produced odd payoffs.

[Mathcapper]

First time, long time. I've had the privilege of meeting many of you at the Spa seminars over the years, but never felt compelled to add to the discussions here before. I did want to respond to some comments made in this thread however, in order to clarify a couple of things:

Rick B. Wrote:
> Which might be a meaningful comparison, if anyone
> actually made parlay bets anymore.
> Second-guessing winning payoffs on serial bets is worthless.
> They pay what they pay.
> Attempts at correlating \"this pool\" to \"that pool\" is an exercise
> in mathematical masturbation.

The assertion that win pools cannot be correlated to their respective multi-race wager pools based on the equivalent win parlays is erroneous. Just because people don't bet parlays anymore doesn't mean the mathematical relationship no longer holds.

There is absolutely and unequivocally a nearly perfect long-term correlation between multi-race payoffs and the equivalent win parlay. The empirical evidence supporting this (both in academia as well as that done by myself) is overwhelming. And it's not just the Daily Double that correlates – it works just as well for the Pick 3, Pick 4, Pick 5 and even the Pick 6.  I've got comprehensive records comparing Pick 6 payoffs to their equivalent win parlays for a variety of meets from the 2013 spring Gulfstream meet all the way back to the 1993 winter Aqueduct meet, and they all show a near perfect correlation.

The correlation between win pools and the multi-race pools is so good in fact, that by looking at the doubles pool from the prior race, I can calculate to an amazing degree of accuracy what the final odds of all the horses in the upcoming race will be – before the wagering for the race even opens!

And I've found that the correlations are just as good when using smaller pools at minor tracks. There are times of course when a particular horse's final odds vary to a significant degree from those indicated by the doubles, but those cases are more the exception rather than the rule. On such occasions, the win pool, which tends to be more efficient, gives a better indication of a horse's true probability of winning.

This leads to the second point discussed in this thread – the concern over pool integrity and late odds changes. When estimating final odds based on the equivalent win parlays from the doubles in the prior race, one quickly sees that what appears to be huge last-minute shifts in odds by the so-called "smart money" is in actuality completely predictable. In the vast majority of cases, the big changes in odds after the race goes off are simply the final odds getting in line with those already established by the previous race doubles.

The beauty of all this is that if one uses this approach, he no longer needs to be concerned with the vagaries of the prerace odds. Armed with a good idea of what the final odds for a race will be, he can construct his wagers long before the race goes off, with the confidence that he will be getting the value on the wagers that he's identified.

[Rick B.]

Mathcapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is absolutely and unequivocally a nearly
> perfect long-term correlation between multi-race
> payoffs and the equivalent win parlay.

I\'ve been charting doubles, pick 3\'s and pick 4\'s
for 20 years, looking for \"hidden money\" on
hot horses. If your premise were true, I would
never find any overlay winners using this method,
and I find at least one of these every day I play.

> The empirical evidence supporting this (both in
> academia as well as that done by myself) is
> overwhelming. And it's not just the Daily Double
> that correlates – it works just as well for the
> Pick 3, Pick 4, Pick 5 and even the Pick 6.  I've
> got comprehensive records comparing Pick 6 payoffs
> to their equivalent win parlays for a variety of
> meets from the 2013 spring Gulfstream meet all the
> way back to the 1993 winter Aqueduct meet, and
> they all show a near perfect correlation.

Call me a skeptic, not just of you, or your numbers...
but of \"near perfect\" anything. Life isn\'t that neat.

Would it be possible for you to post some of your
elaborate evidence?